DocketNumber: No. CV99 036 26 04 S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9768
Judges: MELVILLE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/24/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The relevant portion of the employment contract provides:
"Your employment is considered to be employment at will and the Headmaster reserves the right to CT Page 9769 terminate such employment with or without cause at any time." (See Defendant's Exhibit A.)
On April 29, 1999, the plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against the defendant asserting claims for misrepresentation and promissory estoppel. On July 6, 1999, the defendant filed a counterclaim asserting breach of contract and misrepresentation.
On February 24, 2000, the defendant filed the present motion for summary judgment as to both counts of the plaintiff's complaint and her counterclaims.
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Witt v. St. Vincent's Medical Center,
The defendant moves for summary judgment as to both counts of the plaintiff's complaint. The defendant moves for summary judgment as to count one on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact that her employment was at will and, therefore, terminable at any time. She moves for summary judgment as to the second count on the ground that there was no misrepresentation because her actions were consistent with the underlying principles of the at will employment contract. The defendant argues that the plaintiff's claims must fail because her resignation was consistent with the expectations of the parties' employment contract. Indeed, the defendant argues that when she interviewed and accepted the position with the Fairfield public school system her status as an at will employee had already been agreed upon. Moreover, the defendant argues that there was no contractual obligation made after she executed the employment contract that prevented her from seeking employment elsewhere.
In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff argues that simply because the employment contract contained an at will provision does not bar its misrepresentation and promissory estoppel claims. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the at will provision did not entitle the defendant to misrepresent material facts to induce it to enter into the contract and refrain from considering other candidates. The plaintiff argues that by returning the executed contract, the defendant falsely represented CT Page 9770 that she was not considering other employment and that she had a present intention of fulfilling the contractual obligations. The plaintiff further argues that the defendant's failure to inform it that she was pursuing other employment was a violation of her contractual duty to disclose.
As a preliminary matter, an employment contract for a definite or determinable term, as distinguished from a contract for an indefinite or indeterminable term, may be terminated by either party only for good or just cause. See Slifkin v. Condec Corp.,
In the present case, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an employment contract for the 1998-1999 academic year, a definite or determinable term. However, the employment contract provided that the defendant's employment was terminable at will. Consequently, because the defendant's employment was at will, the employment relationship could be terminated by either party at any time with or without cause. See Id.
Here, because there is a valid written employment contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff cannot maintain a promissory estoppel action. See Moukarzel v. Oxygen Electronics, supra, Superior CT Page 9771 Court, Docket No. 359965. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim must be granted.
Here, based upon the pleadings, affidavits and the other evidence submitted, the court finds that the employment contract is an integrated writing, containing all the terms of the defendant's employment. SeeGiorgio v. Nukem, Inc.,
In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff argues that the defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on her breach of contract counterclaim because the contract terminated when she repudiated her contractual duties. Moreover, the plaintiff argues that the defendant's breach of contract counterclaim must fail because she is neither seeking to compel performance under the contract nor to recover contractual damages for the alleged breach. As to the defendant's misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff argues that the at will provision within the employment contract was not a representation, but rather a covenant that cannot give rise to a misrepresentation claim.
1. Breach of Contract
The key elements of a breach of contract action are: (1) the formation of an agreement; (2) performance by one party; (3) breach of the agreement by the other party and (4) damages. Kennedy v. Westledge,
Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. 262278 (March 12, 1999, Beach, J.). A contract must be construed to effectuate the intent of the parties, which is determined from the language used interpreted in the light of the situation of the parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction. Tallmadge Bros. v.Iroquois Gas Transmission System,
Here, although the language of the employment contract clearly and unambiguously represents the intent of the parties to enter into an employment at will agreement; see Tallmadge, supra, such language does not prevent the plaintiff from instituting an action against the defendant. However, because the plaintiff did not breach any terms of the employment contract, the defendant has failed to establish the key elements of a breach of contract action. See Kennedy v. Westledge, supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 262278. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the breach of contract counterclaim is CT Page 9773 hereby denied.
2. Misrepresentation
The basic element of a claim for misrepresentation is whether there was a false statement. See Citino v. Redevelopment Agency, supra,
Based upon the foregoing, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to both counts of the plaintiff's complaint and DENIED as to her misrepresentation and breach of contract counterclaims.
MELVILLE, J.